Gray v. V.B.C.C.
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge T. S. Ellis, III on 7/9/14. (gwalk, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
Dwayne D. Gray,
Plaintiff,
V.
V.B.C.C. Inmate Housing, ^
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
l:14cv414(TSE/TCB)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Dwayne D. Gray, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, originally alleging that he suffers unconstitutional conditions of
confinement and deliberate indifferenceto his serious medical needs at the Virginia Beach
Correctional Center ("VBCC"). By Order dated April 22, 2014, deficiencies in the initial
complaint were discussed, and plaintiff was allowed thirty (30) days within which to particularize
and amend his allegations in an amended complaint. Plaintiff was expressly cautioned that the
amended complaint would be treated as the sole operative complaint in the lawsuit. In addition,
plaintiff was directed to sign and return a Consent Form and an affidavit concerning exhaustion
of his administrative remedies. Plaintiff has complied with those instructions. After careful
review of the amended complaint, the claim of unconstitutional conditions of confinement must
be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) for failure to state a claim.' Plaintiff includes
' Section 1915Aprovides:
(a) Screening.—^The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any
event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which
a prisoner seeks redress fi"om a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity.
no reference whatever to his allegations of deliberate indifference in the amended complaint, so
that claim is deemed abandoned.^
1. Background
Plaintiff alleges in the amended complaint that the inmate population at VBCC consists
of a "significant number of pretrial detainees," as well as convicted persons sentenced to terms of
less than two years imprisonment or awaiting transfer to other facilities. Am. Compl. at 2-3.
Plaintiff currently is housed in pod C2A, which he describes as a 7' by 13' cell originally
designed to house two persons, but which is now shared by three inmates. As a result, one
person must sleep on "a cold concrete floor" next to the cell's toilet, where he is exposed to urine
and fecal matter. Am. Compl. at 3.^ Plaintiff states that cleaning supplies are issued daily only
between the hours of 7 to 7:45 a.m., and he asks, "What about the rest of the day and night[?]"
Id. Plaintiff alleges without additional detail that VBCC inmates experience "nearly continuous
lockdowns" which subject them to inadequate medical care, risk of serious harm, lack of basic
life necessities, denial of access to the courts, and alienation from family. Id. Plaintiff also
(b) Grounds for dismissal.—On review, the court shall identify cognizable
claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the
complaint—
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.
^In substance, plaintiffalleged in the initial complaint that he had to wait "almosttwo
months" to have some "bad teeth" extracted.
^It is notedthat plaintiffdoes not allege that he is sleeping on the floor; he statesonly
that "a third person" must do so as the result of "overcrowded conditions" at VBCC. Am. Compl.
at 3. However, for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the pro se plaintiff personally has
been required to sleep under such conditions.
contends that the lockdowns prevent him from showering on a daily basis or maintaining a clean
appearance and prevent "adequate sanitation" of the VBCC cells, resulting in moldy showers and
infestations of insects and rodents. Am. Compl. at 3-4. Plaintiff asserts that the overcrowding at
VBCC is "related to, and made worse by other deleterious conditions "maintained by the city as a
matter of practice and policy," including inadequate day room and recreational space, poor
ventilation and air quality, poorly maintained exhaust and intake vents, use of stained or damaged
mattresses and linens, inadequate laundry practices which force inmates to wash their clothes in
sinks and toilets in their cells, failure to train sheriffs and other staff to deal with the overcrowded
conditions, and the allowance of "unconscionably small amount[s] of unencumbered space"
which forces inmates into close contact and creates a high risk of infectious disease, physical
injury and violence. Am. Compl. at 4-5.
The named defendants in the amended complaint are Will Sessoms, described by plaintiff
as "mayor of Virginia;" Terry McAuliffe, said to be "the governor of the V.B.C.C.;" "inmate
housing;" and Ken Stoley, the "overseeing at V.B.C.C." Am. Compl. at
Plaintiff seeks an
award of compensatory and punitive damages. Am. Compl. at 6.
11. Standard of Review
In reviewing a complaint pursuant to § 1915A, a court must dismiss a prisoner complaint
that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C,
§ 1915A(b)(l). Whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted is
determined by "the familiar standard for a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)."
Sumner v. Tucker. 9 F. Supp. 2d 641, 642 (E.D. Va. 1998); Hishon v. King & Spalding. 467
''The Courttakesjudicial notice that Will Sessoms and Kenneth Stolle are the Mayor and
the Sheriff of Virginia Beach, respectively.
U.S. 69, 73 (1984), To survive a 12(b)(6) motion, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal.
556 U.S. —, —, 129 S. Ct. 1937,1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twomblv. 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged." Id However, "[tjhreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice" to meet this standard, id., and a
plaintiffs "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level...". Twomblv. 550 U.S. at 55. Moreover, a court "is not bound to accept as true a legal
conclusion couched as a factual allegation." IqbaL 129 S. Ct. at 1949-1950.
III. Analysis
To establish a claim for cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment due to conditions of confinement, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show (1)
an objectively serious deprivation of a basic human need, that is, one causing serious physical or
emotional injury, and (2) that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to that need. Farmer
V. Brennan. 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Wilson v. Seiter. 501 U.S. 294, 198 (1991).' To meet
'Plaintiffapparently is a pretrial detainee rather than a convicted prisoner. Am. Compl. at
3. Claims of pretrial detainees are governed by the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Rilev v. Dorton. 115 F.3d 1159 (4th Cir.), cert, denied. 522 U.S. 1020 (1997). It
is well established, however, that the due process rights of a pretrial detainee are at least as great
as the Eighth Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner. Slade v. Hampton Roads
Regional Jail. 407 F.3d 243, 250 (4th Cir. 2005). Therefore, in an abundance of caution, the
Eighth Amendment standard is discussed here. S^ Fischer, infra, 2007 WL 1624315 at *4, n. 2
("We are unsure of Fischer's status [as pretrial detainee or convicted prisoner] during the events
at issue in this case, but that uncertainty is of no consequence. The 'minimum standard' of
ensuring inmates with the 'basic necessities' is the same regardless of the constitutional
provision.")
the first prong, plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show that the condition complained of was
a "sufficiently serious" deprivation of a basic human need. Farmer v. Brennan. 511 U.S. at 834.
Only extreme deprivations will make out an Eighth Amendment claim, and it is plaintiffs
burden to allege facts sufficient to show that the risk from the conditions of his confinement was
so grave that it violated contemporary notions of decency and resulted in serious or significant
physical or emotional injury. Hudson v. McMillian. 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992); Strickler v. Waters.
989 F.2d 1375, 1379-81 {4th Cir. 1993). To meet the second prong, plaintiff must allege facts
sufficient to show that defendants knew of circumstances from which an inference could be
drawn that a "substantial risk of serious harm" was posed to plaintiffs health and safety, that
they drew that inference, and then disregarded the risk posed. Farmer. 511 U.S. at 837.
Taking all of plaintiffs allegations as true, he has failed to satisfy either component of an
actionable Eighth Amendment claim. Even collectively, the asserted facts that VBCC cells are
overcrowded, plaintiff may have had to sleep on the floor near the toilet at various times, can
only clean his cell once a day, and is frequently placed in lockdown status do not comprise
objectively serious deprivations of his basic human needs, as they do not subject plaintiff to such
grave risk that contemporary notions of decency are violated. ^
Hudson. 503 U.S. at 8. In
Crowe V. Leeke. 540 F.2d 740 (4th Cir. 1976), an inmate claimed that overcrowded conditions at
his institution amounted to cruel and unusual punishment where three inmates were housed in a
two-man cell and one was required to sleep on the floor. The district court dismissed the
complaint and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding Crowe's claim that he was "forced to sleep in
an overcrowded cell is not a condition of confinement which shocks the conscience so as to fall
within the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment." Id. at 742. More
recently, the Eleventh Circuit reached the same conclusion in Fischer v. Ellegood. 238 Fed.
App'x 428, 2007 WL 1624315 (11th Cir. June 6, 2007), where an inmate alleged that a lockdown
resulted in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions that violated his constitutional rights. Among
his specific claims were allegations that cells were overcrowded, that inmates were forced to
sleep on bare cement floors and on other inmates' mattresses and unwashed linens, and that
inmates were deprived of their daily showers. In affirming the summary judgment awarded to
defendants on this issue, the Eleventh Circuit noted that overcrowding even up to double capacity
does not violate the Constitution absent "deprivations of essential food, medical care, or
sanitation." Id at 433. quoting Rhodes v. Chapman. 452 U.S. 337, 347-48 (1981). The court
further held that plaintiff had failed to show that sleeping on the floor, sleeping on unwashed
linens, or being denied showers amounted either to deprivation of "essential... sanitation" or
Eighth Amendment violations in their own rights. Id Here, then, taken as true, plaintiffs
assertions that three inmates are housed in cells designed for two, he may have had to sleep on
the floor, and he can clean his cell only once a day do not describe conditions that violate
contemporary notions of decency and thus do not state an Eighth Amendment claim. Cf
Hudson. 503 U.S. at 8. Plaintiffs additional conclusory and generalized assertions that the
conditions he describes create a high risk of disease, physical injury, and violence fall short of
suggesting either that plaintiff is subjected to "a substantial risk of serious harm" or that VBCC
officials have recognized and then disregarded such a risk. Cf. Farmer. 511 U.S. at 837. Under
these circumstances, the complaint statesno claimfor which § 1983 relief is available.^
^The amended complaint suffers from other problems as well. It is questionable whether
plaintiffs claim of unconstitutional conditions of confinement is exhausted, since he indicates in
his exhaustion affidavit that there are no administrative remedies available to him or the issue he
raises is nongrievable. Dkt. 6; cf. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) ("No action shall be brought with
respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner
confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are
available are exhausted.") In addition, none of the defendants named in the amended complaint
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, fte complaint must be dismissed for failure to state aclaim
pursuant to §1915A. Plaintiirs application to proceed in fenaa pauoeris accordingly must be
denied, as moot. An appropriate Order shall issue.
Entered this
day of
j,illy
2014.
Alexandria, Virginia
T. S. Ellis, III
United States Di^rict Judge
state no claim for §1983 relief, these issues need not be further explored
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?